Happy Friday! A few updates on federal stem cell research courtesy of the ASRM and Australian surrogacy law. Enjoy!

Surrogacy bill gives parents more rights (Sydney, Australia) –

The Syndey Morning Herald
PARENTS of children born through surrogacy would be given full legal recognition for the first time, under a bill introduced in Parliament last night. Couples would also be able to enter into surrogacy arrangements abroad.

Couples would also be able to adopt a child born to a surrogate mother between 30 days and six months of birth.

MPs will have a conscience vote on the legislation, and it is likely the Opposition will follow suit, although this is yet to be decided.

Church groups are likely to oppose the legislation, which is expected to be less contentious than recent legislation to allow same-sex adoption, narrowly passed last month.

The legislation would ban commercial surrogacy and any associated advertising, although it does provide for all costs of the birth mother to be paid by the intended parents.

It follows a parliamentary inquiry last year that recommended the legislation – despite intense lobbying from church groups – be introduced to strengthen the position of intending parents in a surrogacy birth.

The legislation would allow a court to approve a parentage order once it was satisfied the birth mother and the intended parents had been given legal advice and counselling and had given their informed consent. The birth mother would have to be over 25 when entering a surrogacy agreement.

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said yesterday: ”While it will still be illegal to profit from surrogacy, the birth mother in an altruistic surrogacy will have a legal entitlement to be reimbursed for expenses such as medical and counselling.

“Until now the only way people with children born through surrogacy have been able to gain full parenting rights has been through adoption processes.

ASRM is a founding member of the CAMR; what follows in an update by CAMR immediate Past- President Amy Rick, CEO of the Parkinson’s Action Network, who has been heading up the legal effort for the coalition. The ASRM Public Affairs Staff was deeply involved in the preparation of CAMR’s brief.

The stem cell litigation continues to wind its way through the US court system. As you may recall, the lawsuit is currently in both the District Court, before Judge Lamberth, and in the Court of Appeals, before a three-judge panel. The District Court is receiving arguments “on the merits” whereas the Court of Appeals is technically ruling on whether Judge Lamberth was legally correct when he issued a preliminary injunction on August 23. However, it remains our hope that the Court of Appeals, in hearing arguments on the preliminary injunction, will issue an order that resolves the whole case.

Three significant briefs have been filed in the Court of Appeals in the last few days. On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its brief. Once again, they did an excellent job representing the National Institutes of Health. Their brief is particularly strong on why the legislative history for Dickey Wicker supports the government’s interpretation and on supporting the need for human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted along with adult and induced pluripotent research. I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find DoJ’s arguments compelling.

Two amicus briefs were also filed this week in support of the DoJ brief. An amicus brief is a brief filed by an outside party in a lawsuit that wants to offer additional information for the court to consider. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), in conjunction with the State of Wisconsin and the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), filed an amicus brief on Monday and yesterday, the University of California (UC) filed its own amicus. The Court of Appeals requires that amicus filers attempt to coordinate, so we are pleased that both Wisconsin and GPI agreed to join with CAMR’s brief. Both the CAMR brief and the UC brief do an excellent job supporting the government’s position, although they are quite different from each other. The CAMR brief focuses on the process of stem cell line derivation (which is not done with federal funds) and the legislative history. The UC brief goes back to the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals that grants standing to the two plaintiffs. In my opinion, the UC brief makes an excellent case for why the Court of Appeals should reverse its earlier decision and dismiss this whole case on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing.

The DoJ brief and both amicus briefs can be found on the CAMR website at http://camradvocacy.org/resources.cfm.

The next significant dates in the Court of Appeals are October 28, when the plaintiffs’ brief is due, and then November 4 when DoJ’s final reply will be filed. We expect oral argument to occur shortly thereafter although oral argument is not yet scheduled. The briefing schedule for the District Court mirrors the Appeals court schedule so it is our expectation that Judge Lamberth will wait for the Court of Appeals ruling before he rules.

Egg Dontion and Surrogacy – these are becoming new popular ways to become pregnant. It is difficult. It is emotional and it is expensive, but it provides hope and it can result in a family. Surrogacy programs is when a surrogate mother carries a baby for some one else.

Surrogacy programs are optimal when there is a clear understanding between commissioning parent and surrogate. Although profiles of both parties may be perfect on paper, there needs to be a alignment and consensus about the nature of the relationship, including how the entire surrogacy relationship will prevail.

There is no waiting period for surrogate in South Africa and access to surrogate mother profiles is available.

The surrogacy process differs per surrogacy agency. It is an ideal and preferred process if a commissioning parent can meet with a surrogate and agree the process going forward. If either party elects to withdraw then another party can be introduced, but it also empowers both surrogates and commissioning parents to make the right decisons about the other party with whom they will enter a very personal and intimate relationship. Once both parties are comfortable, the next steps are to medically and psychologically confimr the surrogate mother for the surrogacy program.

It is requried that a surrogacy contract be compiled to facilitate the process and protect both parties. This is best assisted through a professional surrogacy lawyer who has experience with such delicate matters. In South Africa, application for court orders are part of the process which if approved relinquishes parental responsibilities from the surrogate mother.

baby2mom Egg Donation and Surrogacy – www.baby2mom.co.za is a worldclass surrogacy agency with experience in extensive surrogacy programs, optimised to assist both parties. baby2mom is partnered with the best fertility clinic in South Africa and top surrogacy lawyer to offer commissioning parents a complete and packaged surrogacy solution.

“AHMEDABAD: Over a year after they were born, twins born to a German couple through a surrogate mother in Anand have got Indian citizenship.

In a historic judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that children born to surrogate mothers on Indian soil are Indians, if there is any dispute regarding their citizenship in cases of foreign nationals.

Jan Balaz, a freelance writer and his wife Susanne Lohle, both Germans, could not have kids, so they came to India and entered into a surrogacy agreement with Martha Khristi, who delivered twins last April — Nikolas and Leonard. Their birth was registered in Anand municipality. The babies could never be German citizens, as the laws there prohibit surrogacy. The couple settled down in UK and wanted a visa for the kids from British embassy. They had already got Indian passports.

However, the passports were withdrawn by the Centre on the ground that the parents were not Indian nationals and therefore the kids were not Indians. Balaz approached the High Court, and there was a debate on the twins’ citizenship. Ultimately, the High Court took a middle path in the absence of any law, and ordered the Centre to issue identity certificates, just like the Japanese baby Manji’s case, and on basis of this the couple was allowed to take their babies to UK.

A division Bench of Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice AS Dave asked the Centre to give passport to babies for obtaining British visa. The Centre was willing, but surrogacy laws and citizenship were not clear.

Finally, the court considered the Citizenship Act and held: “Even if the children are described as illegitimate children, they are born in this country to an Indian national and hence, they are entitled to get citizenship by birth, as one of their parent is an Indian.””

The inability of the Intended Parents to obtain German citizenship surprises me given my past experience with German clients using American surrogates. Many countries ban surrogacy, but generally those restrictions are limited to prohibiting the conduct within that jurisdiction. This is sheer speculation on my part, but I wonder if this was a traditional surrogate arrangement where the surrogate was the genetic mother. This might explain the result, particularly if the traditional surrogate was married. While there have been a few reported incidents of countries attempting to deny citizenship to children born as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement, they are extremely rare. Fortunately this German couple obtained the result they were seeking. However, for many Germans who have no choice but to work with a gestational carrier outside of Germany, not being able to secure German citizenship for their child would be unacceptable. I will post an update if I receive any additional information on the underlying circumstances of this case.